{"id":5404,"date":"2022-03-07T08:21:28","date_gmt":"2022-03-07T13:21:28","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/dahlman.online\/?p=5404"},"modified":"2022-03-07T08:23:30","modified_gmt":"2022-03-07T13:23:30","slug":"the-logic-of-madness","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dahlman.online\/index.php\/2022\/03\/07\/the-logic-of-madness\/","title":{"rendered":"The Logic of Madness"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

History Rhymes<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The crisis in Ukraine brings up all sorts of historic similarities.  Putin is obviously analogous to Hitler in the 1930\u2019s, trying to build a European empire in a world that\u2019s no longer thinks in terms of military might.  NATO represents the former Allies of World War I, self-centered and unwilling to accept the illogic of dictatorial mania.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

And the United States is almost exactly where it was in the 1930\u2019s:  self-absorbed, to the point we even use the terminology of the time, \u201cAmerica First\u201d.  We are wrapped up in our politics,  the pandemic, and the economy.  We worry about truck \u201cconvoys\u201d driving in circles around our Nation\u2019s Capital.  And meanwhile the people of Ukraine are systematically being conquered, village by village and building by building.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Pain and Suffering<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Step one in understanding our current situation is realizing that Putin may be mad, but he\u2019s not crazy.  He has determined that Russia cannot go on without Ukraine, and perhaps the other former \u201cRepublics\u201d of the Soviet Union.  Further, he is convinced that he, and the Russian people, can endure more pain and suffering than his opponents.  That conviction means that \u201closing\u201d has a whole different meaning to him, certainly than it does to NATO.  If he wins an empire, and kills millions, he has succeeded \u2013 like Hitler or Stalin.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Step two is to recognize that the strategic logic of the last three decades won\u2019t work today.  The War on Terror strategies of  cold-blooded long range strikes with unmanned drones or cruise missiles are meaningless in this situation.  In the War on Terror we tried to put money in the game instead of blood (except for those soldiers who fought in the hills of Afghanistan or the streets of Iraq).  But we are not fighting against low tech enemies interested in causing us pain and suffering, but unable to threaten us strategically.  This would be a war of the first order, with all the weaponry of modern total warfare on the table.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Quiet Part<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Step three is that while economic warfare, sanctions and mandates, might eventually work, its effectiveness all depends on the Russian people.  Senator Lindsey Graham voiced the quiet part out loud when he tweeted that, \u201csomebody should take that guy (Putin) out\u201d.   Assassination shouldn\u2019t be a part of the national policy \u2013 but what else are we asking, with the slow-motion destruction of the Russian economy?  Aren\u2019t we really trying to cause so much economic pain to the Russian people, and more importantly, the Russian oligarchs who represent Putin\u2019s true constituency, that they throw him out?  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Putin\u2019s not Khrushchev; he won\u2019t go quietly to his dacha in the country.  To take Putin out means just that \u2013 assassination.  So while Graham was indiscreet (that\u2019s twice last week) he not wrong.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

True Madness<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Madness and pain brings the ultimate weaponry into question \u2013 nuclear bombs.  The \u201cbalance\u201d of the Cold War was maintained by \u201cMutual Assured Destruction\u201d, MAD.  The final chapter of nuclear warfare is already written:  utter destruction of civilization through nuclear holocaust.  The question:  how close is Putin willing to press to that final conclusion?  Is he willing to use \u201ctactical\u201d nuclear weapons, \u201csmall\u201d Hiroshima like bombs, to achieve his goals?  He is convinced the Russian people will accept more pain than anyone else, perhaps even isolated nuclear devastation.  Nuclear responses are NOT off the table.  The United States cannot unilaterally disarm \u2013 we can only offer an equal-devastating response if needed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Putin\u2019s current line seems to be:  I will do what I want to Ukraine.  You may not react, directly.  A US driven \u201cNo Fly Zone\u201d would bring American and Russian fighters head-to-head.  Even more, US missiles would strike Russian anti-aircraft installations in Russia itself.  That would be a dramatic escalation, a \u201cdouble jump\u201d that would require Russian reaction and escalation.  But NATO giving Ukraine fighter jets or anti-aircraft technology to use on their own is an incremental step.  Putin will warn against it, and certainly not like it, but it doesn\u2019t alter his basic premise.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

And it won\u2019t change the ultimate fate of Ukraine \u2013 just increase the pain that the Russian and Ukrainian people will feel.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Line in the Sand<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The NATO\/US line is clear:  we will do everything short of direct involvement to support Ukraine.  And if Russia steps over a NATO country boundary, \u201cthe line in the sand\u201d, then we will respond with full military force.  Putin isn\u2019t convinced.  He\u2019s not sure that NATO is really willing to go to war for the Baltic States, or even for Poland or Hungary.  He thinks his decade of undermining Western politics, and enticing Europe onto Russian energy, is enough to keep NATO at bay. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Hitler thought the same thing.  In the final analysis, we cannot depend on the \u201creasonableness\u201d of dictators to stop actions.  We can only make the vision crystal clear, that those actions will result in defeat.  But how Putin sees that depends pretty much on him, not us.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

That puts the fate of our world, and of a World War III is in his hands.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

All we can do is respond.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ukraine Crisis<\/p>\n\n\n\n